52 replies to this topic

[Kurayami]

lrms in mw4 were killers. zoom in, target head, press "i won" button - profit. and without lock they will hit exactly one spot also no min range means lrm only mechs were valid builds. dont believe me? try longbow.
aside from this and many other neet trics - yep low curve, easy to intercept or shake down\take cover - still impossible to cover from if fired from top point of jump.
also i surprised no one mentioned that lrms in mw4 were actual objects with hp etc so players could intercept them with anything - i personally used MG's for such occasions.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Just and FYI LRMs in MW4 were grouped in five missile clusters and AMS would shoot down those clusters. They would have to change how AMS works to accommodate that model (which was fail in my opinion). While LRMs in MW4 had shallower arcs they also had better tracking and homing to the point at which your target could dodge the missiles and they would on occasion circle back around if they had enough fuel.

The current way LRMs function is much closer to the table top and allows for actual indirect fire in accordance with TT rules. The damage is off I will admit to that, but the functionality is spot on. If you must complain, complain after they get ECM hashed out as that will very likely degrade most if not all aspects of LRM performance. If they ever implement Thunder and/or Swarm LRM ammunition, I cannot wait to see the wailing and gnashing of teeth over that. because I am evil like that.

[syngyne]

Teralitha, on 07 November 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Edit: Its not how much damage they do or how well they track or how tight the missles are... its the arcing. You have effectively made cover useless.

Russ Bullock, from Kotaku AMA said:

Bug. Got past our process, a failure. That is why Open Beta is so important we need to perfect our processes with a large player base. This should be hot fixed very soon.

They're aware.

Edited by syngyne, 07 November 2012 - 12:37 PM.

[Teralitha]

Valder, on 07 November 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Those MW4 missiles are obviously designed for a single-player focused game, where LRM's are a supplement to your other weapons that you use in fast paced close combat 1v1.

Wrong! Mw4 was very much a team game. Look at all the planetary leagues that formed up around the very tactical team vs team play and went for several years! MW4 was not designed to be single player.... sorry, but your way wrong buddy.

The thing that craps me the most about this game currently is the maps... countless players demand bigger maps for many months... and what do they do in response? Refurbish a current map and call it... "a new map" TBH that just ****** me off.

[IceSerpent]

Nathan Foxbane, on 07 November 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

The damage is off I will admit to that, but the functionality is spot on. If you must complain, complain after they get ECM hashed out as that will very likely degrade most if not all aspects of LRM performance.

So...everybody comes to a conclusion that damage is not a problem, but functionality (i.e. trajectory) is...devs announce that they are working on a hotfix as we speak...then you come along and tell us that we are all totally wrong and on top of that we should wait for ECM to be implemented before complaining (which is not supposed to affect either trajectory or damage in any way, shape, or form)...mind if I ask what the heck you've been smoking and where can we get some of that stuff?

[Teralitha]

Henchman 24, on 07 November 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

So they're being compared to MW4 which admittedly, mish-mashed Clan tech with IS in various areas due to the timeline.

And you all think this applies to pre-invasion mechs how?

No minimum range? wth? Why bother having a difference then?

Oh and "scouting has been nerfed" is utter B.S. - EASY scouting has been nerfed, the lag shield has been nerfed...I know this gets said alot but it fits....pilot your scout better.

My friend who runs a Jenner last night thought his armor was tissue paper, I laughed just about the same time someone on the other team pointed out that he was not properly avoiding missiles while hiding ..."That Jenner still thinks he has his lag shield on!" or something to that effect was the comment. And he was right!

Once my bud realized the truth of it, his night got better, he was more sneaky, more responsive to the battle around him, and didn't die after that at all DESPITE the Artemis LRMs raining all around him.

Please don't act like we all buy into this thinking, not when we have real examples to the opposite.

That is just idiotic ... your jenner friend was dying because missles will still hit him while IN cover. Not because he wasnt hiding effectively. I dont expect everyone to buy into this thinking, even though it is the correct thinking. There are always ignorant people who cant see whats really happening and spew nonsense.

[Teralitha]

syngyne, on 07 November 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

They're aware.

Yes but it would have been nice if they mentioned it to us on their own forum.

Personally I dont think it was a bug. It looks pretty intentional to me, normal LRMS are still the same. Only the Arty LRMS have the increased arcs. I noticed it from the very first volley I fired. How could they have missed that? I think it was just a mistake rather than a bug. They didnt test it enough themselves to realize it. But we are testers too... and we found it... the mistake I mean. I still think they should reduce the arc even more than it was prepatch...

Edited by Teralitha, 07 November 2012 - 01:35 PM.

[Particle Man]

Teralitha, on 07 November 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

said it before and i'll say it again.

why do you need to say it again? they heard you the first 3000 times when everyone has been saying it non-stop.

how does repeating what you've already cried about help the situation any?

Teralitha, on 07 November 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

Yes but it would have been nice if they mentioned it to us on their own forum.

oh, you just want attention.

[Teralitha]

Particle Man, on 07 November 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

why do you need to say it again? they heard you the first 3000 times when everyone has been saying it non-stop.

how does repeating what you've already cried about help the situation any?



oh, you just want attention.

No, I want better missle mechanics. They should have listened months ago instead of wasting resources and time on a failed mechanic. they didnt listen then, and now since the time and resources already wasted, they wont change it now.... And yes i will say it again, because they need to learn to listen.

Edited by Teralitha, 07 November 2012 - 01:40 PM.

[ReD3y3]

Cragger, on 07 November 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Heeh.

That game looks like alot of fun !

[Particle Man]

Teralitha, on 07 November 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

No, I want better missle mechanics. They should have listened months ago instead of wasting resources and time on a failed mechanic.

why? because *YOU* said so?

they listened a few months ago and buffed them like they needed. Just because a patch from less that 24 hours ago brought back an old bug, that they already said they were fixing doesnt give you free reign to go screaming around the forums repeating yourself like some spoiled and entitles 4 year old.

"shouldda couldda wouldda did what *I* said" you dont work for the company, and who would want to listen to someone throwing tantrums?

"But they shoullda told us about it here, even though i found out the info!"
boo hoo.

go attention ***** somewhere better.

[Teralitha]

ReD3y3, on 07 November 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

Heeh.

That game looks like alot of fun !

It was. More fun than MWO I would say... however, it runs like crap for me on windows7... that and no one plays it anymore.

Particle Man, on 07 November 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

why? because *YOU* said so?

Yes. Because Im smarter... and wiser...

[Dawg]

Teralitha, on 07 November 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Wrong! Mw4 was very much a team game. Look at all the planetary leagues that formed up around the very tactical team vs team play and went for several years! MW4 was not designed to be single player.... sorry, but your way wrong buddy.

MW4/Mercs PL was awsome, oh how i miss those days. The Artemis version in MW: Mercs also had better tracking/trajectory than the regular lrms if i remember correctly.

[AC]

Teralitha, on 07 November 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

LRMS did not fly up and over terrain, you literally had to hold your reticle over the target to get a lock, had no min range, could be dumbfired on a stationary target and the target would get no warning(loved that when scouting with LRMS) LRMS could be dodged by faster mechs, and blocked by terrain and destructable objects. For example if LRMS were incoming, and I had trees nearby I could move behind the trees and the LRMS would hit the trees and blow up, though a few would still hit me... Moving behind hills or structures would block LRMS. They did plenty of damage, but were balanced in that you could get in cover to block them. Not now where they fly up and over your cover and still kill you. Which is lame IMO. They had narc beacon which also was hard to use. If you missed and the narc was on the ground, all missles would go to it and be wasted. Scouts had to call out whether a narc was good or bad, also they only lasted a short time because one missle hit the narc, it would destroy the narc. Not many players bothered using narcs back then.

We also had flares, which, when fired at someones cockpit, would blind them. and at night would let them be seen from far away. That was kinda neat, but not many used that either.

I dont think Artemis was in MW4, until someone modded it in later. Cant recall.

We used NARC all the time. Cats sat back with ArrowIV missiles and a scout would go narc. That was fun to watch. It was challenging for the scout because they had to get a good narc and replace it if it was destroyed. It was also more entertaining for the Cats because they had to coordinate fire with the scouts. Not this horribly boring and easy indirect fire system we have now. There is no challenge for either the scout or any interaction from the LRM boats.

[Teralitha]

Dawg, on 07 November 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

MW4/Mercs PL was awsome, oh how i miss those days. The Artemis version in MW: Mercs also had better tracking/trajectory than the regular lrms if i remember correctly.

Indeed! One huge mistake the devs made on this game was basing it off TT rules when they should have started based on previous mechwarrior games rules,(also something I said several months ago) then they wouldnt have wasted so much time realizing they have to change everything like all the previous mechwarriors devs realized. They literally wasted many months figuring out that TT rules have to be modifed. When they could have built the game based on previous MW games rules and been much farther along in development. Sad really... but its too late.

Edited by Teralitha, 07 November 2012 - 02:00 PM.

[Chou Senwan]

If you want a high arc, let us aim our arms upward to adjust the initial trajectory. Then have jumpjets on your catapult. Get high, get a lock, jump, fire upward. It should require skill to have the missiles rain down directly from above.

[MagicHamsta]

Valder, on 07 November 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Do we want low arcing missiles that have no minimum range? Ick.

Yes, if the Missile damage gets cut in half.

[Athurio]

Chou Senwan, on 07 November 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

If you want a high arc, let us aim our arms upward to adjust the initial trajectory. Then have jumpjets on your catapult. Get high, get a lock, jump, fire upward. It should require skill to have the missiles rain down directly from above.

I'm with you on that. You should have some risk vs. reward for that steeper arc.

[CCC Dober]

ReD3y3, on 07 November 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

Heeh.

That game looks like alot of fun !

Pick your ride and enjoy the game =)

[Mister Blastman]

Hmm, I agree with something an HJ is saying for once? Is the world coming to an end? Are cats and dogs living together?